Jonah and the Whale

[OraLabora]

I believe you are mincing words. Did Augustine, or did he not, teach that the story of Jonah and Whale was a true story to be believed as a real historical event.

Excuse me, that is Saint Augustine by the way.

Here is the link again if you would like to review before giving your answer.
newadvent.org/fathers/1102102.htm See Question 6

Is St Augustine’s teaching infallible dogma? Last I heard “saint” does not equal infallible on issues of faith and morals unless the saint was also a pope, or a pope has pronounced the saint’s teaching as infallible. To the best of my knowledge neither is the case here. Hence the belief that Jonah really was swallowed by a real whale ( or large fish) is not de fide.

I do respect your right to believe it to be a strictly literally true story, but since the Church does not require this belief, charity would require that you respect and not question the depth of the faith of those who don’t believe it.

 

[Warrenton]

Do you believe that there was a literal prodigal son or a good Samaritan?

I presume that it is a parable because the text of the Gospel says “Jesus taught them many things in parables.” Christ also explains to the apostles that he is using parables.

Unlike Jonah, the prodigal son does not have a book of prophecy with his name on it.

 

[Warrenton]

ITherefore those who believe that the story is literally true, are right. And those who believe it is allegory are right, because both believe that the story is about truth, and there’s no argument over that truth.

I think I grasp what you are trying to say, but as framed, I cannot agree. Either the events happened or they did not. Scientifically, one or the other must be true. An event cannot both have happened and not have happened.

Let’s be clear about what I am not saying. I am not saying that anyone has to believe in Jonah’s eventful soujourn inside a whale. You can be a good Catholic, or a terrible Catholic either way. I presume some Catholics don’t even know about Jonah.

All I am contending is that it makes no sense to believe in things, or not, based solely on what people think is common. Catholics believe lots of things that are unusual, such as transubstantiation, infalibility, periodic appearances of a lady long departed this world, risings directly into heaven, or for that matter, heaven. To name just a few. The whole thing is a framework of miracles.

This does not mean that I do not share sympathy with the Catholic who says “I have difficulty in believing such a thing as Jonah in the whale could occur.” To that Catholic I make reply: “It is amazing. Keep at it, and perhaps it will seem less unbelievable at some future point.”

In short, I echo St. Benedict: “Ora et labora.”

Patience wears thin, however, with those who try to claim that it is more reasonable not to believe it happened than it is to believe that it happened.

 

[Warrenton]

You are correct - the story of Jonah is actually a work of didactic fiction - a story which attempts to teach something using a fictional story from the author’s imagination.

With all due respect, this statement is a work of didactic fiction.

There is nothing in Church doctrine that says Jonah is fictional, and considerable teaching of the Fathers indicates that the story is not fictional. Indeed, Christ Himself refers to Jonah and does not indicate that Jonah is fictional.

It is not an article of faith to believe Jonah to be literally true, but it is ridiculous to claim that it is required to believe it is fiction.

 

[Speedypizza]

If the Jews, who had these stories much longer then us, do not take them as literal fact, why are some on here so intent on making others take it as such? I have a friend of mine who is not only a Jew, but something of a Rabi in training. His knowledge of the scriptures would put most Catholics (even me) to shame. He said that not only do they not take most of these stories as literal fact, he said that many of the stories are immoral if taken literally.

Now here is my question for the hard nose, it MUST be taken as a history book and everything in it happened just like it said crowd. Why are you so angry about this? Why does it bother you SO much that some of us think some of these stories are not historical fact as much as moral tales telling us how to live well? I am not upset that you take the story as fact, nor am I 100% sure that they did not happen. The truth is I cannot know for sure, at least not till I ask Jesus that if I make it to heaven. Why are you so hard pressed on trying to force us to take the Bible in a certain way, when the Church has CLEARLY said that we do not have to take them as such?

What is it about this that angers you so much? We both feel the other is wrong, and that is that. What difference does it make to you? If you live your life by the morals of the story, what impact is this really going to make? I know it is like the pot calling the kettle black, because I get very passionate about some things too. However I know that when I get like that, I need to get to mass, because Jesus is the best cure I know for it. Adoration also works wonders for me. No matter how upset I was walking in the door, I always leave calm and at peace. Maybe you could try it, because Jesus said he will give us a peace that shall transcend understanding.

Pax

 

[patg]

With all due respect, this statement is a work of didactic fiction.

There is nothing in Church doctrine that says Jonah is fictional, and considerable teaching of the Fathers indicates that the story is not fictional. Indeed, Christ Himself refers to Jonah and does not indicate that Jonah is fictional.

It is not an article of faith to believe Jonah to be literally true, but it is ridiculous to claim that it is required to believe it is fiction.

With all due respect, your statement is a work of fiction.

There is nothing in Church doctrine that says Jonah is literally true, and little, if any, teaching of the Fathers which definitively indicates otherwise.

Indeed, Christ Himself refers to Jonah and does not indicate that Jonah is fictional.

This has no bearing on the discussion at all. Referencing a fictional story to make a teaching point is a perfectly valid technique.

It is not an article of faith to believe Jonah to be literally true,

That is correct.

but it is ridiculous to claim that it is required to believe it is fiction.

An honest analysis of the literary form of the story indicates to many that it is unreasonable to claim that it is *not *fiction.The church dogmatically states that we are to consider the literary form as an integral part of the understanding of scripture. As I said, most stories contain literary clues as to the type of writing and this story is one of the prime examples of fictional revelation.

We are, of course, free to believe either way but I will continue teaching about and believing what I have stated. I have no issue with anyone taking the other path.

 

[OraLabora]

I think I grasp what you are trying to say, but as framed, I cannot agree. Either the events happened or they did not. Scientifically, one or the other must be true. An event cannot both have happened and not have happened.

I think what I am trying to say is that the events happened, but did not happen exactly as described.

In short, I echo St. Benedict: “Ora et labora.”

Neither St. Benedict, nor the Magisterium, to my knowledge, has made it a point of obedience to believe in the literal veracity of the story. I therefore see no point or need to pray (“Ora”) over it.

Patience wears thin, however, with those who try to claim that it is more reasonable not to believe it happened than it is to believe that it happened.

I’m not saying either is more or less reasonable. I am saying it is not a matter the Church requires to believe, one way or the other. I pray the LOTH instead of the Rosary, that does not make me any less Catholic.

I believe that the story of Jonah is historically accurate but illustrated in a way that does not represent an exact depiction of the events but uses literary techniques of the times.

Some believe otherwise. Both of us believe the underlying truth of the story, therefore it is a non-issue, and any debate on it is pointless and raises only creates an unnecessary point of contention and discord (i.e. an “occasion of sin”).

 

[Warrenton]

This has no bearing on the discussion at all. Referencing a fictional story to make a teaching point is a perfectly valid technique.

You have never heard of the many, many sermons the Fathers gave on Jonah and the whale? You do not know that none of those sermons even suggest it is merely a story? Where does Christ give any indication that the story is fictional? He said “as Jonah was in the belly of the whale” so shall the Son of Man be among the dead.

If He meant the story to be just an allegory, then it follows His death would be allegorical. But His death was actual, not allegorical. His death was fact, not “fictional.” Plus, none of the Fathers explained it that way. Why? Because they believed that Jonah actually spent time in the belly of the whale.

If it is so obviously fiction, why don’t any of the Fathers mention it, in their numerous sermons about Jonah?

The church dogmatically states that we are to consider the literary form as an integral part of the understanding of scripture. As I said, most stories contain literary clues as to the type of writing and this story is one of the prime examples of fictional revelation.

This is all wrong. The Church gives us permission not to believe the literal truth of the story. The Church never teaches that someone cannot, or should not, believe the literal truth of the accounts that the Bible contains. Nor does the Church churn out a bunch of theories to justify non belief in the truth of scripture.

Moreover, such an interpretation does not even make sense. The story is no more meaningful by thinking it is fiction than believing it is real. Non belief adds nothing to the understanding of the story in the Christian context.

What you are really saying is that the less you need to believe, the easier it is to believe whatever it may be that you do hold necessary to believe. While this may be human, and while the Church has always tolerated it among its members, it is tepid.

 

[Warrenton]

Neither St. Benedict, nor the Magisterium, to my knowledge, has made it a point of obedience to believe in the literal veracity of the story. I therefore see no point or need to pray (“Ora”) over it.

Isn’t it a good idea to pray over more than the mimimum needed for obedience? Speaking of St. Benedict, what do you think he thought about Jonah?

 

[OraLabora]

Isn’t it a good idea to pray over more than the mimimum needed for obedience?

Yes, but this issue isn’t a priority. I have more pressing issues to pray over.

Speaking of St. Benedict, what do you think he thought about Jonah?

St. Benedict doesn’t mention Jonah in his Rule. How should I know?

 

[Warrenton]

How should I know?

By reading what he read.

 

[OraLabora]

By reading what he read.

Umm, I still wouldn’t know his opinion on it.

Nor for that matter do I have his reading list, though I’m pretty sure he read the Bible and John Cassian

Frankly I don’t see the point of dragging St. Benedict into this other than to fuel an argument, and perhaps cast aspersions against the fact that I am a Benedictine oblate.

I pray the LOTH daily including Vigils with a 2-year monastic lectionary with patristic readings, and nothing I’ve read from John Cassian, St. Augustine, the hagiographic readings or the other Church fathers has convinced me that the story is not didactic fiction (I was incorrect in my earlier terminology it seems), so I doubt you will either.

Instead I see this as a classic Internet debate that goes nowhere, and just becomes people arguing past each other or trying to score debating points, and I don’t see the point with continuing it, as it is divisive and can harm one’s faith rather than nourish it. St. Benedict did say a thing or two about listening. What I have heard here is that a literalist interpretation of the story nourishes the faith of some; I can respect that, and I’m not interested in trying to change their mind. I have stated my views on the matter so that others who aren’t sure may be able to see the issue from more than one angle.

I have nothing invested if those who aren’t sure, decide to believe the story as literally true, as long as everyone agrees on the truth contained in the story. The same degree of respect shown to folks who believe it is didactic fiction, would in fact be more in keeping with the Benedictine spirit of listening and showing respect to people whose views aren’t 100% in accordance with your own.

 

[petrel]

With all due respect to Karl Keating, this statement is patantly false. I have provided a link to St. (notice the word Saint) Augustines very direct address which absolutely defends the Catholic belief of the literal account against the ridicule of the pagans. So I ask Mr. Keating to please remove this statement from CA. St. Augustine was not silent on the subject and he was an authority of the church (or he was last time I checked).

Surely the slaughter of the firstborn by the Angel of the Lord was grotesque and the drowning of the Egyptian army at the parting of the red sea as well. Are we to disbelieve that this too was didactic fiction designed to illustrate a lesson to us. Where does it end.

I keep hearing that “Catholics are free to believe that the story of Jonah and the Whale is didactic fiction”. And yet the people who say this have utterly failed to provide a single authority which supports this. I have provided authority to the contrary from St. Augustine and from the Catholic Encyclopedia which has a Nihil Obstat from a Cardinal.

Keating is not an authority of the church. Knox and Lunn did not in this citation claim that this was not a real historical event. They were denying that it was a natural event (in other words it was a miracle). I certainly believe it was a miracle, just like the conception of Jesus Christ was a miracle. Since when do we doubt a story of the Bible because it has no convincing natural explanation?

Anybody who feels they need to convince themselves that this was naturally possible threatens their faith. This story is to be believed by faith or not at all. Those who lack faith and who require naturalistic explanations (such as evidence that a sailor in 1891 survived in a whales belly) is opening themselves up to a whole world of doubt if that story from 1891 proves to be dubious.

The truth of the account of Jonah and Whale does not rest upon the veracity of a story in 1891 it rests upon the Holy Scripture and the Sacred Traditional interpretation of that scripture.

 

[petrel]

Umm, I still wouldn’t know his opinion on it.

Nor for that matter do I have his reading list, though I’m pretty sure he read the Bible and John Cassian

Frankly I don’t see the point of dragging St. Benedict into this other than to fuel an argument, and perhaps cast aspersions against the fact that I am a Benedictine oblate.

I pray the LOTH daily including Vigils with a 2-year monastic lectionary with patristic readings, and nothing I’ve read from John Cassian, St. Augustine, the hagiographic readings or the other Church fathers has convinced me that the story is not didactic fiction (I was incorrect in my earlier terminology it seems), so I doubt you will either.

Instead I see this as a classic Internet debate that goes nowhere, and just becomes people arguing past each other or trying to score debating points, and I don’t see the point with continuing it, as it is divisive and can harm one’s faith rather than nourish it. St. Benedict did say a thing or two about listening. What I have heard here is that a literalist interpretation of the story nourishes the faith of some; I can respect that, and I’m not interested in trying to change their mind. I have stated my views on the matter so that others who aren’t sure may be able to see the issue from more than one angle.

I have nothing invested if those who aren’t sure, decide to believe the story as literally true, as long as everyone agrees on the truth contained in the story. The same degree of respect shown to folks who believe it is didactic fiction, would in fact be more in keeping with the Benedictine spirit of listening and showing respect to people whose views aren’t 100% in accordance with your own.

Shall we also show a degree of respect to folks who believe that the virgin birth is didactic fiction? So who decides which story of the scripture can be regarded as didactic fiction and which cannot? Does every man run after his own understanding?

No he consults the Church, and I don’t mean the liberalist rationalist element within the church who the Church tolerates for the sake of peace. I mean that he consults the deposit of the faith which has been assembled over 2000 years.

Please provide a single authority of the church which permits the interpretation of the story as didactic fiction and we will compare his authority with St. Augustine.

 

[Miriam1947]

petrel, relax. Please. You’re beginning to sound like some internet posters I know who hate the Catholic Church because of our beliefs.

You want all of us to believe exactly as you do. Well if the Church herself says that I do not need to take something literally, then I’m going with what the Church says.

 

[meltzerboy]

If the Jews, who had these stories much longer then us, do not take them as literal fact, why are some on here so intent on making others take it as such? I have a friend of mine who is not only a Jew, but something of a Rabi in training. His knowledge of the scriptures would put most Catholics (even me) to shame. He said that not only do they not take most of these stories as literal fact, he said that many of the stories are immoral if taken literally.

Now here is my question for the hard nose, it MUST be taken as a history book and everything in it happened just like it said crowd. Why are you so angry about this? Why does it bother you SO much that some of us think some of these stories are not historical fact as much as moral tales telling us how to live well? I am not upset that you take the story as fact, nor am I 100% sure that they did not happen. The truth is I cannot know for sure, at least not till I ask Jesus that if I make it to heaven. Why are you so hard pressed on trying to force us to take the Bible in a certain way, when the Church has CLEARLY said that we do not have to take them as such?

What is it about this that angers you so much? We both feel the other is wrong, and that is that. What difference does it make to you? If you live your life by the morals of the story, what impact is this really going to make? I know it is like the pot calling the kettle black, because I get very passionate about some things too. However I know that when I get like that, I need to get to mass, because Jesus is the best cure I know for it. Adoration also works wonders for me. No matter how upset I was walking in the door, I always leave calm and at peace. Maybe you could try it, because Jesus said he will give us a peace that shall transcend understanding.

Pax

There are indeed different levels of interpretation in Judaism, as there are in Catholicism. Some of this analysis depends on the style of writing: for example, the Psalms would be interpreted in light of their poetic literary genre rather than narrative. At the same time, however, a given story or verse may be interpreted in several ways simultaneously: face value, figurative, homiletic, mystical, and so on. Further, the more profound types of interpretation can be used to better understand the literal meaning. Torah, Talmudic, and Kabbalah scholars devote their lives to understanding the multiple layers of interpretation of stories such as this.

 

[petrel]

Yes, but this issue isn’t a priority. I have more pressing issues to pray over.

On the contrary it is a matter of the highest importance. St. Robert Bellarmine who is one of only 33 Doctors of the church stated that to deny that Jacob had 12 sons is as much a departure from the faith as to deny the virgin birth.

Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles.

Our alarm should be extreme because during the modernist period it became fashionable to question all the stories of the scripture. The Church with all her authority was powerless to stop the slide. We can thank the fundamentalists in the protestant churches for restoring belief in the miracles of God.

It is an incredible double standard when accusing fundamentalists to trace back the continuity of belief on such things as the Sinlessness of Mary, and yet to fail to do the same thing when discussing the story of Jonah and the Whale.

To deny even one Traditional interpretation of the stories of Sacred Scripture is a slippery slope that the modernists found themselves on. Look how quickly the whole world began to doubt and question the inspiration of the Bible and the inerrancy of Scripture, The virgin birth of Christ, The belief that Christ’s death was the atonement for sin, The bodily resurrection of Christ, and The historical reality of Christ’s miracles along with the miracles of the Old Testament.

This is not a light matter, it is a war between two world views. One which believes the scriptures and another which casts doubt on their authenticity. The rationalists want to cast doubt on a little story like Jonah and the Whale and having won a victory with that they will then move on to another story like the Plagues of Egypt or the crossing of the Red Sea.

Yet the Lord calls us to watch and not be caught sleeping. We are called to gird up our loins and defend the faith which was once delivered. I ask therefore, what was delivered to the church at the time of the apostles and prevailed for almost 1000 years until the modernist period? Was it didactic fiction or was it a true event occuring in history to real people?

 

[petrel]

petrel, relax. Please. You’re beginning to sound like some internet posters I know who hate the Catholic Church because of our beliefs.

You want all of us to believe exactly as you do. Well if the Church herself says that I do not need to take something literally, then I’m going with what the Church says.

Please provide evidence that the church says that you do not need to take the story of Jonah and the Whale literally. I regard this as mere heresay and urban myth.

 

[Miriam1947]

Please provide evidence that the church says that you do not need to take the story of Jonah and the Whale literally. I regard this as mere heresay and urban myth.

Please provide the dogma on this. You prove it.

 

[Timothysis]

With all due respect to Karl Keating, this statement is patantly false. I have provided a link to St. (notice the word Saint) Augustines very direct address which absolutely defends the Catholic belief of the literal account against the ridicule of the pagans. So I ask Mr. Keating to please remove this statement from CA. St. Augustine was not silent on the subject and he was an authority of the church (or he was last time I checked).
.

For the last time, your infatuation with St. Augustine is misplaced. Just because he proposed an opinion on a scripture text does not mean that his is the final word. The Church has never supported the historical truth of Jonah in the whale’s belly by appealing to Augustine. (BTW, Augustine, like St. Jerome, were not canonized because of their work in biblical interpretation but because of the sanctity of their lives, so the constant mention of the title “saint” really has no meaning or importance in the question of the literalness of scripture.)

In any event, the Church in her Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation says* “12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.”*

The Church goes on to say "To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)"

This is not a concept that was simply drawn down out of the air but a position that has always been upheld and supported by the Church, that "truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse."

BTW, notice the word “dogmatic” in the title of the constitution and the fact that it was promulgated by a pope. I think that trumps your “Nihil Obstat from a Cardinal.”